... is there any longer term member that would like to reintroduce themselves to the Credentials community
Dave Longley: I am the CTO of Digital Bazaar, we create products related to Web Payments, Verifiable Claims, and Blockchain - we co-founded this group and a number of others at W3C. We build our solutions on open standards and devote a lot of time to initiatives such as this one. ✪
Topic: Action Items
Christopher Allen: On work items, our oldest work item is the naming options ✪
... question for manu, can we do this with "+1" here? or do we need to do it on the list?
... or do the chairs just say yes?
Manu Sporny: Typically W3C process is to seek consensus and chairs only step in if that cannot be achieved ✪
Manu Sporny: Typically w3c process is to try to achieve consensus and let that drive it, only when it's difficult to find consensus do the chairs step in. I would suggest that we do a quick call for consensus on the call today and see how many people we have supporting it. After we do that, notify the mailing list that there's a week to object to taking the DID spec as a work item. [scribe assist by Dave Longley] ✪
... lets do a quick +1 on the call, and then notify the mailing list that there is a week to object. If there are no objections, then we'll proceed.
Manu Sporny: So lets see how much support there is here, and notify immediately to the mailing list ✪
Manu Sporny: If there are no objections after a week we just pull it in and start working on it. That's the typical way to address addition of new work, it results in the hardest thing to undo after you work on it. I think we should propose to work on it in the CG right now and then make an announcement immediately after the call on the mailing list notifying about objections for a week. [scribe assist by Dave Longley] ✪
Manu Sporny: That's the typical process. [scribe assist by Dave Longley] ✪
PROPOSAL: Accept the DID Specification as a Credentials CG work item.
Christopher Allen: The proposal is to accept the DID data specification that has been drafted by Drummond, Manu and many others as a work item ✪
Christopher Allen: We have 9 votes in favor and no objections ✪
... I will post an email to the list right after the call
... Moving on to our main topic of a deep dive
RESOLUTION: Accept the DID Specification as a Credentials CG work item.
Topic: Lifecycle Deep Dive
... We discovered that multiple participants have interest in the life cycle of a VC
... but different approaches to how to look at that, that may be very compatible
... each will take a 10 minutes to describe how they approach it, then some time for them to comment on similarities, and then open things up to a group discussion
Joe Andrieu: My presentation: http://legreq.com/files/WoT.VC.EngagementModel.pdf Joram 1.0.0: http://bit.ly/joram100 Chris's WoT Scenario: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2017/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/RWOT-User-Story.md ✪
Joe Andrieu: Here are some links, one for the presentation then the Joram paper, then Chris' work to frame the use case ✪
... my work item was to propose doing a identity life cycle and engagement model with VCs
... the Joram 1.0.0 paper came from the Syrian refugee crisis research
... the idea is to capture the human requirements on both sides of a complex technical systme
... for Joram we assume there is a magical distributed data store and that Joram can accrete an identity through that system, but try not to get bogged down in the specifics of how that works
... we added some devops stages, I'll get to this in a second
... it covers all the stages of user engagement with the system
... the idea is to keep it slim and easy to read, as a sympathetic narrative so that you can get into the minds of the users
... and understand why they are doing what they are doing and get a gut-check of the viability of the system (would they really do this?)
... the fourth slide is all 15 stages all together
... in slide 5 the two paragraphs that comprise stage 7
... show the level of detail involved.
... (see content)
... this gives you a sense of what people need to do to accomplish their jobs
... on slide 6, the top half of the stages
... describes how things unfold
... <continues to outline stages in the joram-engagement-model.pdf file>
... Identity information is acquired through stage 6, disclosure
... stage 9, updates, covers expected changes to the record through some sort of interface or app
... in step 10 things are going wrong in an unexpected way (you might have to hand-write some sort of edit to the DB)
... step 11-13 are devops stages
... transferring one schema to another are covered.
... finally how to deal with lost credentials, which might be the hardest problem in this type of use case
... after that exit and re-engagement
... slide 8 is a link to ChristopherA's work, a write up of a "web of trust" use case involving first and second generation emmigrant trying to establish a reputation that doesn't compromise personal safety or current workplace location
Manu Sporny: Yes, we can start processing the queue at this point ✪
Christopher Allen: JoeAndrieu, first would you like to comment briefly, and then a turn for DavidC before we go to the queue ✪
Joe Andrieu: One interesting thing (I like the work here on fleshing out the whole picture), the data model is really focused on a single individual, but doesn't discuss merrits or things like a trust model ✪
... that isn't in scope for my document
... it is just one thread through the experience
... It didn't start out as intentional, but the information life-cycle is not about identity but focuses on information flows instead
... where that information "acretes an identity"
David Chadwick: I saw the main difference was that JoeAndrieu's model has the stewards doing the interaction with the data store, and the refugee is a passive entity ✪
... but wasn't the main actor
Christopher Allen: The web-of-trust use case has a lot more "agency" items addressed, so that may help ✪
Manu Sporny: There are two points I'd like to make ✪
... I'm trying to figure out where all of this good work goes from a document perspective
... how do we direct that energy into the specfication or architecture for the W3C standards track
... we want this stuff to become more central to the messaging than just a published doc
... David's work feels like a big improvement on the architecture document that we have right now
... and it feels like we could take section 2 on of this document and make that into the VC arch doc
... the architecture document could have some life-cycle documents in it, or some life-cycle explaination
... then we could point to JoeAndrieu's work
... as it does a great job of breaking down the whole use case in a technology agnostic way
... which helps us call out what technologies we are mapping these use cases to
... JoeAndrieu, how do we intend to map this to a set of technologies to achieve the use case?
... this could provide good gap analysis to see if we've covered it
Christopher Allen: (I do map in my draft of the WOT user story, but I don't think Joe plans to keep that part) ✪
... DavidC, would you be comfortable with putting this into the arch document and pointing to JoeAndrieu's detailed use case in there?
... which then JoeAndrieu could map to which specs help to achieve is use case?
Moses Ma: I think what we'd like to do is take what you've done and create, maybe not a use case for the entire group, but map the needs for an ICO investor ✪
... they are doing to want to know "is this a hacker?", "is this an accredited investor?" and this might help us understand the other end of use (as opposed to the refugee case)
Ryan Grant: I have a question for DavidC for the way to search for disputes by the subject of the claim ✪
... for example, they believe I live in Hawaii but have also given me a good credit rating
... causing the dillema, do I use it when it is obviously not quite correct? Can I somehow register my formal dispute, that I have attempted to correct my data?
Moses Ma: Joe, Manu, Chris - do you want us to create another "user persona" diagram? We can map the day in a life into a single visual. ✪
... it would be nice to have some way of registering these
David Chadwick: This is a good question, where the Issuer is the owner of the information and publish incorrect information about you ✪
... I'd like to think that the data protection legislation that we have would help with this (legally providing the ability to redress this)
... I know that there are supposed to be ways for addressing this
Moses Ma: I mean modifying the current diagram to fit this use case, integrating the models presented. ✪
... I have used the legislation to pay to get the data but not change it
... I think it needs to go into the model somewhere, it needs to be able to be addressed
Ryan Grant: I feel like we do have these legal means, but where there is an agent-mediated protocol it makes bumping out of that mediated protocol very difficult ✪
... it creates many registration and complexity issues
David Chadwick: The hope is that you as the center have the ability to control this, but there are some interesting impacts to this, where you may chose not to disclose negative information about you ✪
... so we need means for someone being able to disclose information to an inspector without necessarily involving the Holder
Christopher Allen: Clearly there are a few things in this category ✪
... a discussion in the VC group about kinds of VCs, including providing evidence of ratings or reputation
... then the difference between revocation (by the issuer) and refutation (by the subject)
... some of this belongs in the data model, some of it in the layer above that
... in our community there is a difference between a self-sovereign system and how you might do this in other ways
... the self-soveriegn approach doesn't necesaarily address negative information but does address other concerns that are underrepresented currently
... Another thing that really helps is that these documents are consicse and we need more documents like them
... something about a user with agency over their healthcare, for example going through the life-cycle of care
... we should come up for a name for what these are called where they are not quite use-cases and not quite user stories
... when I designed the web-of-trust bitcoin reference, I referred to Alice's engagement model to make sure we had the right steps outlined in detail
Joe Andrieu: I would like to respond to Manu's question ✪
... How do we map this work to tech implementations?
... For what we're doing with Alice, there is the assumption that it is the technology we are doing for VCs
... with Issuers, Holders and Verifiers and how that works, but I probably won't drive down more than that
... those are design and implementation choices
Moses Ma: By the way, it looks like our consulting firm is going to get a gig with a large bank to facilitate a design spec around blockchains, decentralized identity, verifiable claims and... capital markets. If you'd like to join the design sprint as a "spark plug" outside innovator, please send me an email with your bio. It won't pay a bundle, but we'll be able to cover travel and an honorarium. My email is moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com. Probably in late September. ✪
... It is easier to place a design decision in the narrative, but when you tease out the non-human interactions you free up what the implementation _can_ be
... with mobile devices and identity containers, and I'm not sure that the two presentations today capture that "three layer model" that includes the pharmacy or DEA as the institutional component
David Chadwick: I'd love to read your use case and see if we can have it fit when it is finished ✪
Adrian Gropper: I'm in process writing an update for RWoT in the fall ✪
Christopher Allen: One of the key things here has to do with "agency" ✪
... Joram 1.1 should be more specific about agency and who is in control at various phases
... whether it is institutions or Joram himself
Moses Ma: Nage, the ICO example would include the SEC or (France AMF) and the dealer broker, so it might capture the three layer model. ✪
... Alice, Bob, and Carol have 100% agence, etc
... we might have a third party like an insurer where there is less agency...
... given the engagement model how might we do this through a variety of mechanisms
... in all of these documents capturing these details might be important
... JoeAndrieu and DavidC and agropper and whoever else, please continue to evolve these and see how this information might fit in
... to answer manu's question, I don't think we're quite there for integration, but we should encourage them and keep them moving forward (I plan to particpate)
Christopher Allen: Next week we will close out the naming discussion and start on the mission statement ✪
... that will be about half of the meeting, are there any other requests for next week?
Joe Andrieu: Want to talk after the call about "apartment hunting" use case? [scribe assist by Ryan Grant] ✪
... if you have any more to present please let us know
Moses Ma: One other small issue - "VC" is very established as an acronym for "venture capitalist", maybe discuss expanding to a 3 letter acronym? ✪
Adrian Gropper: Can someone help find my HIE of One RWoT link before the minutes are closed? ✪